Seeing Red

The “Morning Joe” tweeting is another example of how demeaned the office of President has become. We have spoken, before, about the Trumpeter-in-Chief’s eerie attraction/aversion to female bodily functions, particularly those that may involve blood.

This brings to mind the history of the Marquis de Sade, who was attracted to beautiful women, but sought their destruction, when their natural functions destroyed his fantasy. This is the dynamic behind serial rapists.

Non-linearly but also apropos, this also brings to mind Rappaccini’s gardens and the poisoned blood of his daughter, remediation of which caused death.

Trump’s garden does not contain beautiful flowers, just a lot of stinkweed.

Post navigation

5 Comments

Daedal2207 and SB have given us a treasure of new clues. I hope the readers enjoy as much as I do the pleasures found in the process of being a good detective and making best sense of it ALL.

Let’s start with the opening statement presented by SB: “There are none so blind than those who do not wish to see.” Wishfully blind to what? For our every expression there is a reason(s) and a purpose(s) and/or consequences. What can we learn about those mindsets who use this expression? In context it becomes clear that SB is expressing the belief that those deemed to be “blind” do not “see” that which SHE BELIEVES to be important. It declares that her view has greater validity, is superior, and others are inferior. Ego-serving, “I see the light” and others do not, is in common use to strengthen religious affiliations and secular faiths. A claim that others “are on the wrong side of history” (and thus I am not) is a variation on this theme. Now, just because it is ego-serving does not mean that the belief being served is not truth-based and may be justified. However it does indicate that self-enhancing comparisons are an important component in the writer’s motivation. As the criteria for judging the value of human activity, SB’s use of a subjective “decency” rather than a measurably objective “that which works best” is further indication that for her a subjective “feeling good” is prioritized over an objective, thus measurable and verifiable “doing good”. “Ego-serving” and “addictive” seem to be correlated. Thus there exists for those so driven a heightened risk that objectivity will be compromised. It seems likely that we are all subject to this danger (myself included). To guard against this hazard I choose to consider everything I believe (and present to you) to be a hypothesis – and thus subject to correction GIVEN BETTER EVIDENCE. (Accusations that another is morally inferior display only an effort to emotionally manipulate and do not constitute good evidence.) The suggestion that I am incapable of “seeing the light” becomes an easy escape from having to engage in the objective disciplines of logic and math). Early on, I decided that I don’t want to waste a moment of my one and only life believing, and acting on, ideas that are not best tested. This is the heart of the scientific method. This is what I argue is the “superior” and thus “exceptional” process for enhancing the probability that we humans will successfully navigate life to its best future: Use the most accurate (best tested) charts possible. And yes, I recommend to all that we try to be “exceptional” in this fashion.

SB writes: “DS has vociferously boasted in the past his possession of Western superiority/exceptionalism. However, that mindset acknowledges certain fundamental norms of decency to protect society. Excuses for lack of decency are hypocritical at best, and instinctively dark-souled at worst.”
It is fascinating when that which can be demonstrated logically, mathematically, and empirically to improve more lives is deemed by well-meaning minds to be less “decent”, less acceptable, than a lesser way that they choose to advocate. Consider a most fundamental truth of life: It is true that lives need resources to live and thrive. It is true that there are never enough resources to equally meet every person’s needs. Therefore, it is true that if we increase resources greater numbers of humans have potential access to resources needed to live and thrive. Therefore, if we select policies that diminish the production of resources more lives will suffer depravation and perhaps death. Free markets tend to embrace ALL legal motives that expand our production of resources. The person suffering a cancer would not likely refuse a life-saving drug because the person or the company that produced it did so primarily for monetary profit (often erroneously called greed) and not from a compassionate, altruistic heart. Yet today’s liberal or leftist mindset would condemn and punish (with excessive redistributive taxation) those who are not conforming to their favored government’s idea of a “truly”, decent, empathic, and compassionate heart. So, logically, an embracement of “compassion” of this sort destroys some life by discouraging those who are most able who would otherwise enthusiastically participate in the production of resources needed for life. As I have said before – go figure!

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post tends to share the mindset described above and thus believing his leftist-leaning beliefs (and his self) to be morally superior, is inclined to select “facts” that support an advocacy of socialism rather than an advocacy of full truth. For instance he writes, “It is no stretch to imagine that Trump’s contempt for the constitution will once again force the court’s hand.” For this conclusion to be logically true requires also that Trump must actually be contemptuous of the constitution. Trump’s selection of Gorsuch is strong evidence that he does understand (and Robinson may not) the separate-powers genius of the original-intent constitution.

The MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell segment linked to by SB is more of the same, but its levels of bias are greater and more obvious. “Trump knows nothing of the constitution.” “Trump has never read the founding documents.” “Trump has surrendered to Russia.” “He wants to ban Muslims.” “Trump doesn’t care about voting rights”. These are actually opinions but presented to the public as if they are written-in-stone “facts”. The “Muslim ban” would be true if we acknowledged that it pertains to an effort to isolate only those destructive members of the Muslim faith who wish to do us harm. For some reason(s) the leftist mindset seems incapable of acknowledging that there is no logical way to defeat a religion that preaches the destruction of all other religions without engaging in religious discrimination. Yes, without a constitutional amendment we must protect U.S. citizens’ rights to religious liberty. But this does not have to apply to those who are not U.S. citizens.

Daedal2207 has provided only hateful opinions about Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas:
About my list of 24 Republican accomplishments he says: “Few of these things are accomplished (fortunately). Gorsuch seems to be to the right of Gengis Khan and the buddy of the only other clear falsifier on the court Clarence, the Monroe back to the future, hypocritical race card player, Thomas. The loss of face with the world’s leaders is likely to accelerate with the upcoming meeting which includes further domination of our incompetent by Putin.”
Without an explanation that presents valid reasons to support these judgments they remain only what are likely extreme expressions of an unjustified anger. Genghis Khan? Clear falsifier on the court? I understand Thomas to be a protector of justice for each and every individual citizen no matter their race or group affiliation. He was and is therefore rightly resistant to the contamination of justice called “social justice”. Gorsuch will likely judge law as it was written by congress, not as leftism would want it biased to somehow bypass the will of the people and more easily correct for the elite’s perceived social wrongs.

George Will’s concerns about Trump’s personality are worth considering. He and Charles Krauthammer make strong cases supporting the “red flags” I mentioned in 2 July’s contribution. My point did not deny that Trump is flawed, but given his record of selecting quality cabinet members and the listed 24 “achievements”, his qualities likely outweigh the negatives. The biggest negative to another four years of Democrat rule would have been the loss of the original-intent Supreme Court and such deep dependencies and entitlements created by leftist policies that we could no longer expect a correction capable of bringing back the all-around excellence that adherence to the original idea called “America” is capable of generating. (See the difficulties today associated with altering newly created entitlements and shifting Medicaid back to its original safety-net function.) Given that SB so likes Will’s take on Trump, does that admiration extend to his views on the economy, small government, individual responsibility, and individual liberty?

Red flags wave in the air. Donald Trump displays unusual-for-a-President concerns (obsessions?) about those who criticize him by engaging in outbursts of childish Twitter attacks. Does this reveal a disastrous, deep-seated flaw that will bring down the Country and perhaps the world? Or, is this a quirk, just a superficial “tick” that is distracting, but not dangerous? The objective answer to this question tells us whether the red flags being waved are excessive, thus obstructing the required vision, or are revealing it. What can we honestly claim to “know” with certainty? We can know that on many important issues what Trump would call an accomplishment the Democrats would call a loss. For Democrats to achieve their primary goals requires that Trump mostly fail. We can therefore expect the Democrats to favor (claim certitude for) any interpretation of events that will demean and obstruct the President in achieving his primary goals.
So let’s list some of what Trump would call “achievements” since acquiring office:

By the Democrats at least 12 of these items are strongly “felt” to be moves that have taken us in the “wrong” direction. Yes, we have a President that has a complicated personality – like no other (perhaps Andrew Jackson would come close), but as for coming together, striving to plan for our best future, the obvious problems related to major agenda differences (which transcend presidential quirks) are what should be prioritized.

Few of these things are accomplished.( fortunately).Gorsuch seems to be to the right of Gengis Khan and the buddy of the only other clear falsifier on the court Clarence,the Monroe back to the future ,hypocritical race card player,Thomas. The loss of face with the world’s leaders is likely to accelerate with the upcoming meeting which includes further domination of our incompetent by Putin.

There are none so blind than those who do not wish to see. Even more disappointing is the worshipping of dogma at the expense of human decency. With the exception of the successful political appointment of Supreme Justice Gorsuch (a seat which was egregiously and unconstitutionally stolen from the previous administration in a political gamble that paid off), executive orders of intent don’t amount to much other than PR photo opportunities. And, false claims of jobs created are just that … false/fake … and cruel in their repetitious brainwashing capacity. Explain it to the Carrier workers, United Technology having benefitted from corporate tax welfare at the expense of the citizenry (which includes the company’s own workers). DS, to fact check your list in an attempt to bring the light to you, who do not wish to see, is an exercise in insanity … you know, doing the same thing expecting a different outcome?

The reason for my contribution in this forum is a humble attempt to expose to the wide variety of readers … who, obviously care … to facts that express concern as to the direction and aspirations of our country … concerns that daedal 2207 thoughtfully raises. DS has vociferously boasted in the past his possession of Western superiority/exceptionalism. However, that mindset acknowledges certain fundamental norms of decency to protect society. Excuses for lack of decency are hypocritical at best, and instinctively dark-souled at worst. For a more eloquent case, I offer the latest opinion of Pulitzer Prize winner Eugene Robinson, expressing universality of thought:

Opinions
Our #FakeHero president is an insult to our Founders
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer July 3 at 7:51 PM
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were highly imperfect men. Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Southerners were rank hypocrites for declaring “all men are created equal” while owning men, women and children as their slaves. John Adams was sour and disputatious, and later as president would sign the Sedition Act cracking down on criticism of the government. John Hancock was accused of amassing his fortune through smuggling. Benjamin Franklin could have been described as kind of a dirty old man.

Yet they laid out a set of principles, later codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that transcended their flaws. At this bizarre moment in our history, it is useful to remember that the ideas and institutions of the American experiment are much more powerful and enduring than the idiosyncrasies of our leaders.

I call this moment bizarre for obvious reasons. As Thomas Paine would write in December 1776: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

We have a president who neither understands nor respects the basic norms of American democracy. Make no mistake: Donald Trump is a true aberration. There is no figure like him in U. S. History, for which we should be thankful.

Trump’s inexperience is unique; he is the only presidentnever to have served in government or the military. This weakness is exponentially compounded by his ignorance of both policy and process, his lack of curiosity, his inability to focus and his tremendous insecurity. He refuses to acknowledge his shortcomings, let alone come to terms with them; and he desperately craves the kind of sycophantic adulation that George Washington, a genuine hero, pointedly rejected.

Trump is a #FakeHero. He strings along his supporters with promises he has no idea how to keep. Like many a would-be strongman before him, he defines himself politically by the fights he picks; he erects straw men — faceless “elites,” cable television hosts, Muslims, Mexicans, nonexistent individuals or groups waging an imaginary “war on Christmas” — because authoritarians always need enemies. Yet his ego is a delicate hothouse flower, threatened by the slightest puff of criticism.

The Founders, mindful of their own faults, ultimately designed a system to contain a rogue president. They limited his elective term to four years, gave checking and balancing powers to the legislative and judicial branches, and designed impeachment as a last-ditch remedy. The Trump presidency compels all of us to be mindful of our constitutional duties. The role of the citizenry ~ to express approval or disapproval at the ballot box ~ includes making sure that suffrage is not selectively and unfairly denied by restrictive voter-ID laws or partisan purges of the voter rolls. It is heartening that red states have joined blue in resisting the attempt by Trump’s trumped-up “voter fraud” commission to assemble a national list of voters. Perhaps some future administration could be trusted to make sense of our confusing patchwork of voting systems. This one can’t. Congress must assert its powers of oversight. One reason the signers of the Declaration gathered in Philadelphia to pledge “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” to the cause of independence was that they saw the mingling of royal power and British commercial interests as corrupt. We now have a president whose far-flung business empire ~ which he has refused to divest, and which his family still operates ~ presents myriad potential conflicts of interest. Trump has deepened the swamp, not drained it; and Congress has a duty to sort through the muck. Congress must also let Trump know, in no uncertain terms, that any attempt to impede or disrupt special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election meddling will have the gravest consequences. Trump should be told that firing Mueller would automatically be considered grounds for impeachment.

The justices of the Supreme Court, meanwhile, should study the court’s decisions in United States v. Nixon, which forced Nixon to turn over his White House tapes; and Bush v. Gore, which halted the 2000 vote recount in Florida. Both were instances wherein the court, which rightly shies away from decisions that determine who occupies the presidency, felt it had no choice but to act. It is no stretch to imagine that Trump’s contempt for the constitution will once again force the court’s hand.

The Fourth of July is no day for despair. It’s a day to remember that our system, though vulnerable to a charlatan such as Trump, is robust and resilient. Eventually he will be tossed or voted out. And the star-spangled banner yet will wave.

These things may not suit DS’s agenda of superiority. In his inability to see a bipartisan concern for the lack of standards in truths, and in anticipation of DS’s defense being an attack on “liberal ideals,” below is Pulitzer Prize winner conservative George F. Will’s column opining: